#i would like to edit this for another 30 minutes to modify the worst or weirdest parts of this post

[onecornerface]

I’m not sure that I have many very unpopular specific views, but I might have unpopular combinations of views. Although some of the rarity might be contingent on how I phrase them.

When summarized in a slogany crude fashion, they sound weird (generally associated with starkly opposed subcultures or viewpoint-clusters, etc.). But I think with the proper onslaught of caveats and avoidance of loaded terminology, some of them aren’t terribly counterintuitive. I can’t really prove this in advance, except on a case-by-case basis which requires more time than I want to spend on it now.

I probably can’t even prove it with the one case I’ll describe below in this one post. I’ll have more to say on the ideas of microaggression and canceling, and families of related or modified concepts, in future posts hopefully.

Put crudely, I can say both (1) microaggressions are real and bad, and also (2) cancel culture is real and bad.

I can say I think this is basically accurate, without veering far from some standard ways these terms are used, although they are not the terminology I’d prefer (for a bunch of reasons, including their loadedness, their alienating quality for people outside the standard groups who use them, and their lack of precision, etc.).

I don’t think there are a whole lot of people who would affirm both those claims in those terms. “Microaggression” is seen as associated with an (at worst) oversensitive or (at best) theoretically-and-pragmatically-inadequate brand of academic and lay-activist woke progressivism. “Cancel culture” is seen as associated with hypocritical conservatives, centrists, and some anti-woke leftists (who I suspect would also tend to reject “microaggression” as neoliberal, individualist, etc.). There’s all kinds of baggage which reduces the amount of overlap among people who buy into the concept “microaggression” and people who buy into the concept “cancel culture.”

But then, a properly explained version of my position requires a whole lot of further nuancing, and it might be that this increases the overlap among people who find the one plausible and people who find the other plausible. My own position includes (1) an ambivalence about the merits of the term itself (I can take or leave it, or simply use or abandon it based on my audience, without being disingenuous), and (2) a reliance on some recent scholarship which provides a basis for preserving and improving the concept (whether by name or not) as part of an insightful analytical framework to discuss normatively important issues.

In favor of “microaggression,” there is recent scholarship by Regina Rini, Heather Stewart, and a few other people, along with material I’d add to it.

And in favor of “cancel culture” [or, more minimally, “canceling”], there is the preliminary characterization by ContraPoints, plus a recent book by Ben Burgis and also an unpublished paper by a grad student friend of mine, plus some material I’d add to it.

In each case, recent work (on “microaggression” and “canceling/cancel culture”) provides some definitions and theories which make a presumptive case for the importance of the phenomenon, answering older criticisms, and at least partially fixing the most glaring flaws of earlier scholarship or accounts. This amounts to something like a real-life ongoing steelmanning of “microaggression” and “cancel culture.” Far from decisive, and still flawed, but strong enough for me to think it isn’t bunk and that it is on the right track.

One could raise genealogical worries, among other issues: Some claim the bulk of the “microaggression” discourse until recently was blatantly theoretically flawed & biased toward inflaming culture wars or an objectionable stance of reporting too much stuff to college HR administrators. And some claim “cancel culture” was popularized as a complaint mainly for enabling privileged conservatives to dismiss progressives or marginalized people. If such problematic origins [or, more likely, some more complicated variant of them] can be demonstrated for a concept, this might create worries that even later more sophisticated scholarship is suffering from anchoring biases, post-hoc rationalization or suchlike [cf. sophisticated theology, which indeed suffers from such things]. I can’t refute all such arguments here, but I take them seriously.)

Importantly, the improved “microaggression” framework doesn’t seem to contradict the improved “cancel culture” framework. The fact that they’re associated with opposing tribes does not provide a clear reason to think they can’t both be legitimate. (Maybe it provides some subtle or indirect reason to think so, but this has not been demonstrated.)

Now, I could be off-base in any number of points I’ve made here, much of which is extremely preliminary. (If you think the concepts of “microaggression” and/or “cancel culture” are probably dumb already, you probably shouldn’t change your mind very much simply due to the hand-wavey, indirect, generalized statements I’ve made on their behalf so far. Though again, I’m mainly defending the importance of the phenomena that some strands of these concepts describe, and the legitimacy of the scholarship on them, not so much the terms themselves. And I simply haven’t really gone into the substance of them so far, so this is all very preliminary. I haven’t made much of an argument. I have alluded to the idea that there is a set of arguments to be made, and that the smartest people who write on these topics are smarter than the average person in the mainstream discourse by an extremely and perhaps surprisingly wide margin. You might make your judgment based on how reliable you think I’ve tended to me in the prior cases when I have alluded in such ways.)

My main point (which, alas, i’ve barely explicated so far) is more to suggest that there are, plausibly, a lot of pairs of ideas which are mostly only adopted by mostly non-overlapping sets of people-- even when the best versions of these ideas are prima facie reasonable and non-contradictory. I hope to have more to say on this, and more examples, at a later time.

#i would like to edit this for another 30 minutes to modify the worst or weirdest parts of this post #but i want to go to bed soon and i also do not want to leave this post for another day #so i will take a risk and post it now

[paperanddice]

Tears of the Crocodile God Part 5

Mold King’s Throne

This encounter is a bit of a nightmare to convert. It has three separate traps/hazards that interact with each other, a constantly growing supply of minions/low level opponents taking up space and getting in the way, and a puzzle the players will probably want to figure out during the fight rather than push their way through all of the possible enemies. Forty-four enemies, 40 of whom can come back from the dead, just turns into a nightmare slog that has the potential to be either dull or badly overwhelming. Also, if you’re running it properly there’s essentially 3 sides to the battle. The party, the undead, and the living crocodiles (many of which will turn into undead and join that side). The hazards here are going to be the real challenge, figuring out how to stat up pressure plate traps along with the death mold environment traps. They’re incredibly position sensitive things in 4e, making exact movement very important, and while 5e can at least accommodate that 13th Age doesn’t use it at all. If anyone has suggestions for how the system usually does those kinds of hazards I would greatly appreciate the info.

As for the monsters, the challenge comes from expressing how the death mold infesting the undead works. It’s not too difficult, aside from the risks that they all share where a creature reduced to 0 hp instantly dies and reanimates as a new zombie. One big thing with this fight is the river crocodiles swarming in and being killed to produce the death mold crocodiles. 13th Age at least provides the metric of mook mob hp to make tracking them easier, but 5th edition with it actually having hp for enemies can slow that down quite a bit. If you want to make things a touch easier, just make the river crocodiles into pseudo-mooks for this fight. I tracked it where if anything did 16 or more damage they immediately died, while any less and they just got a mark on the token. If a marked crocodile took any damage, it died. Meant that they were 2-shot at worst and helped keep things moving faster as I could just mark or kill and move on without worrying about specifics.

The problem I have with the death mold and the zombies is that the damage output necessary to drop the river crocodiles is higher than what a monster should deal in area of effect attacks, so they’re less likely to die from the spore burst. In 4e, it was easy because minions only had 1 hp, but with 5th Edition and 13th Age that isn’t the case. Even my two strike policy in my own 5E version didn’t have that option, and it was much less likely for the river crocodiles to specifically get killed by the death mold. My way around that was to have the death mold poison, and that getting dropped to 0 while poisoned triggered the zombie transformation, which is a bit more of a pain to track. For 13th Age however, my thought was that it could just deal enough damage to immediately drop the mooks in this encounter. It still doesn’t one shot the sacrifices, especially through their one chance to save themselves, but it puts them at much greater risk without having to rely on an ongoing effect.

5th Edition

Death Mold Zombie Medium undead, neutral evil Armor Class 15 (natural armor) Hit Points 110 (13d8+52) Speed 20 ft. Str 18 (+4) Dex 10 (+0) Con 18 (+4) Int 5 (-3) Wis 15 (+2) Cha 4 (-3) Saving Throws Wis +5 Damage Vulnerabilities fire Damage Immunities poison Damage Resistances necrotic Condition Immunities charmed, exhaustion, frightened, paralyzed, poisoned Senses darkvision 60 ft., passive Perception 12 Languages understands the languages it knew in life but can’t speak Challenge 6 (2300 XP) Death Mold. If the zombie is targeted by an effect that cures disease or removes a curse, all the mold infesting it withers away and it loses its Spore Burst reaction. Dormant Corpse. Whenever the zombie takes radiant damage it falls prone. Undead Fortitude. If damage reduces the zombie to 0 hit points, it must make a Constitution saving throw with a DC of 5+the damage taken, unless the damage is radiant, fire, or from a critical hit. On a success, the zombie drops to 1 hit point instead. Actions Multiattack. The zombie makes two melee attacks. Slam. Melee Weapon Attack: +7 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 8 (1d8+4) bludgeoning damage and 7 (2d6) poison damage. Reactions Spore Burst (Recharge 5-6). When an enemy hits the zombie with a weapon attack, it unleashes a cloud of death mold spores in a 10-foot radius centered on itself. Each living creature in that area must make a DC 15 Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, the target is poisoned for one minute and takes 10 (3d6) poison damage. If a Small or Medium creature is reduced to 0 hit points while poisoned this way it immediately dies and transforms into a death mold zombie. The zombie rolls initiative and acts on its turn. The poisoned creature can attempt the saving throw again at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success. On a successful save, the target takes half the poison damage and is not poisoned.

Death Mold Crocodile Medium undead, neutral evil Armor Class 13 (natural armor) Hit Points 16 (3d8+3) Speed 20 ft., swim 30 ft. Str 15 (+2) Dex 10 (+0) Con 13 (+1) Int 1 (-5) Wis 12 (+1) Cha 1 (-5) Saving Throws Wis +3 Damage Vulnerabilities fire Damage Immunities poison Damage Resistances necrotic Condition Immunities charmed, exhaustion, frightened, paralyzed, poisoned Senses darkvision 60 ft., passive Perception 11 Languages - Challenge 1 (200 XP) Death Mold. If the zombie is targeted by an effect that cures disease or removes a curse, all the mold infesting it withers away and it loses its Spore Burst reaction. Dormant Corpse. Whenever the zombie takes radiant damage it falls prone. Undead Fortitude. If damage reduces the zombie to 0 hit points, it must make a Constitution saving throw with a DC of 5+the damage taken, unless the damage is radiant, fire, or from a critical hit. On a success, the zombie drops to 1 hit point instead. Actions Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 6 (1d8+2) piercing damage and 7 (2d6) poison damage, and the target is grappled (escape DC 12). Until this grapple ends, the target is restrained and the zombie can’t bite another target. Reactions Spore Burst (Recharge 5-6). When an enemy hits the zombie with a weapon attack, it unleashes a cloud of death mold spores in a 10-foot radius centered on itself. Each living creature in that area must make a DC 11 Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, the target is poisoned for one minute and takes 10 (3d6) poison damage. If a Small or Medium creature is reduced to 0 hit points while poisoned this way it immediately dies and transforms into a death mold zombie. The zombie rolls initiative and acts on its turn. The poisoned creature can attempt the saving throw again at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success. On a successful save, the target takes half the poison damage and is not poisoned.

13th Age

Death Mold Zombie 4th level troop [undead] Initiative: +4 Vulnerability: fire, holy Moldy fist +9 vs. AC - 10 damage Natural even hit or miss: Both the zombie and its target take 2d6 damage. [Special trigger] Spore burst +9 vs. PD (all engaged plus 1d2 nearby enemies) - 7 poison damage, or 14 to mooks. A creature that is reduced to 0 hit points by this damage immediately dies and becomes a death mold zombie. Limited use: 1/round, as an interrupt when the zombie is hit by a weapon attack. Undead fortitude: Each time the zombie is dropped to 0 hit points, it can roll a hard save (16+). If it succeeds, the zombie is instead reduced to 1 hit point. The zombie can’t make this save if the damage that reduced it to 0 hit points is fire, holy, or from a critical hit. AC 18 PD 16 MD 12 HP 75

Death Mold Crocodile 4th level mook [undead] Initiative: +4 Vulnerable: fire, holy Bite + 9 vs. AC - 4 damage Natural even hit: The target loses its next move action. [Special trigger] Spore burst +9 vs. PD (all engaged plus 1d2 nearby enemies) - 4 poison damage, or 14 to mooks. A creature that is reduced to 0 hit points by this damage immediately dies and becomes a death mold zombie. Limited use: 1/round for the entire mob, when one or more death mold crocodiles in this mob dies from a weapon attack. Each death mold crocodile killed increases the number of targets for this attack by 1. Undead fortitude: The first time a death mold crocodile is reduced to 0 hit points, it can roll a hard save (16+). If it succeeds, the crocodile regains 5 hit points. The crocodile can’t make this save if the damage that reduced it to 0 hit points is fire, holy, or from a critical hit. AC 18 PD 16 MD 12 HP 18 (mook) Mook: Kill one death mold crocodile mook for every 18 damage you deal to the mob.

Chained Hydra

This encounter is built around a single incredibly dangerous opponent in an unusual situation. A portcullis blocks the path, and fighting through the bars of it should pose a challenge to both sides of the conflict. The hydra in the original adventure escapes being simply sniped down from outside of its reach by spitting venom at anything that can get into line of sight of it. Most of its stats can be pulled directly out of the core books, since there are already hydras in both 5th edition and 13th Age, just modifying it to add the poisonous effects and ensure they sit at the right level for the adventure.

5th Edition

This is relatively easy. I gave the hydra poison damage on all its bites and a ranged venom spit attack to deal damage to creatures at range. The extra damage bumps its CR up a little bit, but that’s just even more appropriate for a level 10 party to face off with.

Increase the hydra’s Perception to +8 and passive Perception to 18 Adjust the bite attack to this: Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +9 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 10 (1d10+5) piercing damage and the target must make a DC 16 Constitution saving throw, taking 7 (2d6) poison damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. Venomous Spit. Ranged Weapon Attack: +9 to hit, range 30/60 ft., one creature. Hit: 7 (2d6) poison damage. On a critical hit, the target is blinded until it spends and action to wash the poison out of its eyes with water or a similar liquid.

13th Age

Use the seven-headed hydra as the base, adjusting the gnashing teeth attack to deal 6 damage and 6 ongoing poison damage. Give it the following attack, or give it the nastier special and change the fire damage to poison damage. R: Venomous spit +12 vs. PD (one nearby enemy or a far away enemy at -2 atk, 7 attacks) - 6 ongoing poison damage Natural 16+: The target is blinded by venom, becoming hampered and weakened until it spends an action washing its eyes out.

The hydra is more damaging in melee, but its ranged attacks have a chance of severely limiting a character, forcing a choice to close in and engage it or keep distance. For larger groups, rather than try to cram additional monsters into a scene entirely designed for a single monster, bump the hydra up one level.

Mimic’s Parlor

Ah, the mimic. The classic “gotcha” monster of D&D. How do you even guard against literally any random object being a monster ready to kill you? They’re kind of unfair, but I think essentially every long running campaign I’ve had (as well as my latest premade adventure) has featured mimics at some point. Usually when they’re much lower level than the party, and as a side feature to a larger encounter. It removes the sting of being ambushed by the bed if you can still crush it even after it grabs you. This encounter keeps to that dynamic, with a level 10 party being confronted by a bunch of much lower leveled mimics and the ambushers being more in service to holding someone down for the bigger threats. Their grapples are still quite annoying to deal with even if you’re quite a bit higher leveled than them.

The bigger threats in this case being the advanced mimic leading the others, capable of shapeshifting into the last person it ate, and some cloakers taking up their old role of clinging to a wall and pretending to be fabric. The impersonator mimic is basically a person with body horror morphing kinds of things. I always play up mimics twisting and deforming their faked form as the fight goes on, looking less and less like the thing they copied, and that applies to the impersonator mimic as well. Limbs stretching out, mouths forming where you don’t want them to be, clothing revealed to just be more of the creature’s body rather than something covering it. Lots of good fun.

5th Edition

The mimic spawn are easy enough as regular mimics, and I created a stat block for the impersonator mimic. The cloakers are a bit of trouble, since they’re quite high leveled in 5E and putting even one in puts some restrictions on the fight’s composition, but with larger groups it’s less of a problem.

Impersonator Mimic Medium monstrosity, true neutral Armor Class 16 (natural armor) Hit Points 123 (13d8+65) Speed 30 ft. Str 18 (+4) Dex 19 (+4) Con 20 (+5) Int 17 (+3) Wis 16 (+3) Cha 20 (+5) Skills Deception +8, Stealth +7 Damage Resistances acid Condition Immunities prone (object or true form only) Senses passive Perception 13 Languages Common Challenge 7 (2900 XP) Absorb. As a bonus action, the mimic reduces another mimic adjacent to it to 0 hp. When it does so, it can take another action on its next turn to make a single weapon attack. Adhesive (Humanoid or Object Form Only). The mimic adheres to anything that touches it. A Huge or smaller creature adhered to the mimic is also grappled by it (escape DC 15). Ability checks made to escape this grapple have disadvantage. False Appearance (Object Form Only). While the mimic remains motionless, it is indistinguishable from an ordinary object. Grappler. The mimic has advantage on attack rolls against any creature grappled by it. Shapechanger. The mimic can use its action to polymorph into an object, the last Small or Medium humanoid it ate, or back into its true, amorphous form. Its statistics are the same in each form. Any equipment it is wearing or carrying isn’t transformed. It reverts to its true form if it dies. Actions Multiattack. The mimic makes three attacks; two with its pseudopod and one with its bite. Pseudopod. Melee Weapon Attack: +7 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 13 (2d8+4) bludgeoning damage. If the target is in humanoid or object form, the target is subjected to its Adhesive trait. Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +7 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 15 (2d10+4) piercing damage plus 9 (2d8) acid damage.

13th Age

None of the creatures in this encounter come standard in 13th Age. Apparently mimics weren’t high on the list of monsters to convert, possibly for the same reason rust monsters didn’t get in until the Bestiary and came with a bunch of warnings. Monsters hidden as other things can be toxic, though removing them doesn’t prevent toxic GMs from doing their thing.

Mimic Spawn 6th level mook [aberration] Initiative: +6 Sticky pseudopod +10 vs. PD - 8 damage and the target is grabbed Natural odd miss: The mimic spawn can make a vanishing trick attack as a free action. [Special trigger] Vanishing trick +11 vs. MD (the nearby enemy with the highest MD) - the mimic pops free from all engaged creatures and transforms into an object. The mimic spawn is invisible until it attacks or a creature spends a standard action to make a DC 25 skill check to identify it. An invisible mimic spawn does not take carry over damage from other mimic spawn. Slobbering bite +15 (includes +4 grab bonus) vs. AC (one enemy it’s grabbing) - 14 damage Ambusher: The mimic spawn can use vanishing trick as a free action when initiative is rolled. If the mimic spawn attacks while invisible it gains +2 attack and +4 damage. AC 22 PD 20 MD 16 HP 23 (mook) Mook: Kill one mimic spawn mook for every 23 damage done to the mob.

Impersonator Mimic 8th level troop [aberration] Initiative: +12 Sticky pseudopod +12 vs. PD - 30 damage Natural even hit: The target is grabbed Natural odd miss: The impersonator mimic can make a vanishing trick attack as a free action. [Special trigger] Vanishing trick +13 vs. MD (the nearby enemy with the highest MD) - the mimic pops free from all engaged creatures and transforms into an object. The mimic is invisible until it attacks or a creature spends a standard action to make a DC 25 skill check to identify it. Acidic bite +17 (includes +4 grab bonus) vs. AC (one enemy it’s grabbing) - 30 damage and 10 ongoing acid damage Absorb: Once per turn as a quick action the impersonator mimic can deal 23 damage to a nearby mimic spawn. If it does so, it can take an extra standard action on its next turn. Ambusher: The mimic can use vanishing trick as a free action when initiative is rolled. If the mimic attacks while invisible it gains +2 attack and +4 damage. Impersonator: The mimic can perfectly copy the last humanoid it ate. It requires a DC 25 skill check to identify that the mimic isn’t the original. AC 24 PD 20 MD 20 HP 150

Cloaker 6th level spoiler [aberration] Initiative: +10 Sharp teeth and flapping wings +11 vs. AC - 15 damage Natural 16+: The target is grabbed if the cloaker doesn’t have a creature grabbed already. While grabbed, the target takes 10 ongoing damage and is hampered. C: Unnerving moans and wails +11 vs. MD (1d3 nearby enemies) - 10 psychic damage and the target is dazed (save ends) Natural 16+: The target can’t use the escalation die while dazed. Limited use: The cloaker can only use this ability when the escalation die is odd. Share damage: If the cloaker takes damage while it has a creature grabbed, it only takes half damage and the grabbed creature takes the other half. Shadow shift: 1/round when the cloaker is the target of an attack it can make a hard save (16+). On  a success, the attack targets a shadow duplicate of the cloaker instead of the real one and the cloaker takes no effect from the attack. AC 22 PD 16 MD 20 HP 75

Next time, we’ll go into the inner sanctum and start wrapping up the last encounters of the adventure.

#13th Age #D&D #DnD #Dungeons and Dragons #5th Edition #my homebrew #monster #Tears of the Crocodile God #adventure

[lobselvith8]

Angst Character Asks: Fallout 4 Edition

I was tagged by @suplexranger. About four days ago. =P I will be addressing my Brotherhood protagonist, Javier, who I have been playing on Fallout 4 with Freefall mod installed (which serves as an unofficial patch that also adds cut content), along with some others that enhance the Brotherhood experience and allows other areas of the Nuka-World region to be settled (I also intend to re-create my Railroad main character, Mako, in case anyone wants to make saving Emmett the cat an option for the PS4).

1.   What would your OC’s last words be/what are they?

At the beginning of his story (and up to a certain point afterwards, before arriving at the Institute), Javier’s last words most likely be “Shaun”.

2.   What would break your OC beyond repair? Has it happened?

The destruction of the world nearly broke Javier, but Codsworth was able to pull him back from the brink before he succumbed to a complete break with reality.

3.   What is your OC’s worst memory?

The death of Javier’s spouse. His memories of Anchorage would rank up there, however. Coming back home and seeing power armored soldiers shoot civilians on television, to public approval, would be up there as well. Javier is cognizant about the horrors of the world before the Great War; he doesn’t romanticize the past at all.

4.   Does your OC have nightmares? What do they contain?

Yes, he deals with nightmares. Being a soldier at Anchorage. His time trying to adjust to living back in the real world after living in a battlefield. The murder of his spouse and the kidnapping of his son.

5.   Your OC is facing their worst enemy. Who/what is it?

The Institute.

6.   What would get your OC to make themselves disappear?

After Javier leaves Vault 111, I don’t think he would disappear; he isn’t as nomadic as my Courier was (and that ended for him when he elected to forge an autonomous Mojave). I don’t believe there is anything that could make him permanently depart the Commonwealth.

7.   Does your OC have any weaknesses? Have these ever been exploited?

Javier’s need for revenge, and his desire to reunite with Shaun, are certainly exploited at the start of the story - although Javier doesn’t realize it yet. He has seen the Vault 111 terminal entry that a manual override was initiated, and he’s aware there are things he doesn’t quite understand - including the chair and the strange symbol overlooking the entrance to Vault 111, which tells him there is another player on the board.

8.   What is the closest your OC has come to death?

Facing Kellog because synths surrounded him, and ultimately landed a hit on him when he turned Kellog into a pile of ash.

9.   What is the greatest sacrifice your OC could ever make? Under what circumstance would they make it?

Javier’s greatest sacrifice would be coming up ahead - concerning his decision regarding his son. And the circumstance would be choosing between his son and the fate of the Commonwealth.

10.   What is the worst loss your OC has suffered?

Losing his spouse and his son.

11.   Your OC is forced to kill a member of their family or a friend. Who do they choose, and why?

Another decision that will be coming up ahead - when Javier has to choose between the Nuka-World raider gangs and the Commonwealth, after he has gotten to know Porter Gage.

12.   To what extent would your OC go to survive?

Javier’s motivation is less about survival for his own sake and almost entirely about Shaun.

13.   Has your OC suffered trauma?

Yes, both in his pre-war life and in his current life in the Commonwealth. A part of the reason Codsworth is around is due to his programming having protocols to help Javier with trauma.

14.   Would your OC let themselves be forced into a loveless marriage?

Javier would prefer to marry for love, but if the circumstances were dire enough, he would.

15.   How far would you OC go to protect their loved ones?

Assuming the person wasn’t evil? Javier would go pretty far for someone he loved, whether the person was a friend or a significant other. Javier does have a code - while he aligns with the Brotherhood, he doesn’t kill innocent synths (but he has no problem killing malevolent and Institute aligned synths), but he does view their campaign against Super Mutants, raiders, Gunners, ferals, and the Institute as the best chance for the Commonwealth.

16.   Your OC has exactly 15 minutes to live. What is their last act?

Depends at what part of Javier’s story this would transpire. Before finding Shaun, Javier would most likely try to leave a message with Codsworth for Shaun, spending as long as possible trying to tell his son everything that he couldn’t in person.

17.   What is your OC’s greatest failure?

Javier’s inability to save Shaun.

18.   What is the worst possible ending for your OC and why?

The Institute being victorious because he finds them to be the fulcrum of true evil.

19.   What is your OC’s preferred method of death?

Javier prefers energy weapons; he initially uses a modified laser musket after encountering Preston and his moiety crew from Concord, and (later on in the story) after arriving at the Prydwen he uses a modified plasma rifle.

20.   How does your OC sleep at night?

He has difficulty sleeping at night given his nightmares, and he would try to find a safe place where he couldn’t easily be ambushed in order to sleep while he travels the Commonwealth (sleeping out in the open isn’t an option for him given the dangers all around him).

21.   What is the worst thing your OC has done?

At my current point in the story, it would be persuading farmers to allocate a portion of their crops for Proctor Teagan’s unofficial op - Javier has absolutely no idea where Virgil could be in the Glowing Sea, he needs currency and supplies, and he is bereft of the resources to last weeks, if not months, scourging through the inhospitable terrain of the Glowing Sea to find Virgil (since Kellog didn’t know exactly where he was).

Interestingly enough, I found that, after a period of time had passed, these settlers offered my protagonist the quest that allows my character to help and control their settlement, even without having joined the Minutemen - although that could be because of the Freefall mod.

As far as Javier’s story is concerned, however, this didn’t happen (I restarted from a prior save point), since I’m not ready to invest that kind of time and energy into settlement building (and I think it would make more sense to do it after Javier arrives at the Institute, when he could expend that kind of energy into such matters without having to worry about finding Shaun).

22.   What is your OC the most guilty about?

Failing to save his spouse.

23.   Would your OC be considered good or bad by an outsider?

I suppose it depends on the outsider. I think most of the residents of Vault 81 would view him favorably. I’m sure the raiders and Gunners would consider him to be a pretty horrible person.

24.   Who does your OC hate most?

In terms of an individual person? Kellog. In terms of an organization or society? The Institute.

25.   What does your OC love most, and what would they do to keep it?

He enjoys a nice cup of coffee, but it’s been some time since he had any pre-war coffee (so there isn’t much he could do to keep it). 

With respect to an item, he does keep the wedding ring of his spouse safely tucked away, at first in Sanctuary (so that nothing happens to it even if something were to happen to him), and later on (after the arrival of the Prydwen) in a container at the Boston Airport.

26.   Has your OC ever had unrequited feelings of any kind for someone?

Magnolia. He thought that perhaps he could try to move on from his wife and start something new, but she wasn’t looking to get attached to anyone after their date, and he closed himself off for a bit after that.

27.   How does your OC deal with rejection?

Depends on the kind of rejection. If you mean romantically, as with the case with Magnolia, he accepted what she decided on, although he did privately deal with the pain of rejection.

28.   Would your OC ever reject someone?

If someone asked Javier to do something that would violate his moral code, he would ultimately oppose it.

29.   Why does your OC have the flaws that they have?

Mental trauma, anxiety, and depression.

30.   Would your OC kill?

Yes, he has killed, and he would kill.

31.   Would your OC torture?

Torture isn’t a tactic that Javier would use or condone, as the denizens of Covenant will find out.

32.   Does your OC hate? To what extent?

Javier hates Kellog, and he hates the Institute.

33.   How does your OC let out anger?

He verbally expresses it, and as with people who try to rob him, that can turn lethal.

#sole survivor #bos protagonist #fallout 4

[global-news-station]

CHRISTCHURCH/WELLINGTON: Accounts emerged on Sunday of heroic attempts to tackle a gunman who slaughtered 50 people at two mosques in New Zealand, as authorities prepared to begin releasing the bodies of victims to their families for burial.

Australian Brenton Tarrant, 28, a white supremacist, was charged with murder on Saturday. Tarrant was remanded without and is due back in court on April 5 where police said he was likely to face more charges.

Friday’s attack in the city of Christchurch, which Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern labeled terrorism, was the worst ever peacetime mass killing in New Zealand.

Ardern also said she wanted to talk to Facebook, as footage of the attack on one of the mosques was broadcast live on Facebook, and a “manifesto” denouncing immigrants as “invaders” was posted online via links to related social media accounts minutes before the violence began.

Amid the shock, outrage and recriminations that have consumed New Zealand over the past two days, tales of heroism and self-sacrifice emerged.

Abdul Aziz, 48, was hailed for confronting the shooter at the second mosque and preventing more deaths.

Aziz, originally from Afghanistan, ran outside after the shooting started and picked up a shotgun that the gunman had dropped. The gun had no shells in it, he said.

Read More: This is how Afghan man stopped terrorist from more bloodshed

“I chased him,” Aziz said. “He sat in his car and with the shotgun in my hands, I threw it through his window like an arrow. He just swore at me and took off.”

Another man, Naeem Rashid from Pakistan, was seen on the gunman’s video confronting the shooter before he was killed, the BBC reported. Rashid’s 21-year-old son, Talha, was also killed.

The death toll climbed to 50 when police found another body at the Al Noor mosque, where more than 40 people died after a gunman burst in and opened fire on worshippers with a semi-automatic rifle with high-capacity magazines, driving to attack a second mosque.

Police rammed the suspect’s vehicle and arrested him as he drove away from the second mosque in the suburb of Linwood.

Police Commissioner Mike Bush said the man was apprehended 36 minutes after police were alerted and he was the only person charged in connection with the shootings. Three people detained earlier were not involved, he said.

‘INCOMPREHENSIBLE’

Huge piles of flowers were laid at sites near the mosques and crowds of people of all faiths gathered to pay respects. Some played guitar, sang and lit candles as darkness fell.

Members of a Maori motorbike gang performed a haka war-dance at one site.

Church services for the victims were held, including at Christchurch’s “Cardboard Cathedral”, a temporary structure built after a 2011 earthquake.

But the priority for grieving family and friends on Sunday was laying their loved ones to rest. It is customary in Islam to bury the dead within 24 hours but no bodies have been released because of the investigation, police said.

Ardern said victims would be handed over to families from Sunday evening.

“It is likely, however, to be a small number to begin with,” she told a media briefing, adding that all should be returned by Wednesday.

Wearing a black scarf, Ardern hugged members of the Muslim community at a refugee center on Saturday, saying she would ensure freedom of religion.

Thirty-four people were in Christchurch Hospital, with 12 in intensive care, while a child was moved to a children’s hospital in Auckland.

Greg Robertson, head of surgery at Christchurch Hospital said staff were used to gunshots and other severe injuries, but the scale and nature of the attacks was different.

“The magnitude of this is the thing that is the most significant issue for people. It’s just comprehending what is the incomprehensible.”

The majority of victims were migrants or refugees from countries such as Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Somalia, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.

The youngest was a three year old boy, according to an unofficial list of the dead.

Pakistan’s high commissioner said six citizens had been killed and three were missing. Five Indians were killed, its High Commission said.

GUN LAW ‘WILL CHANGE’

Tarrant did not have a criminal history and was not on any watchlists in New Zealand or Australia.

Ardern said a “manifesto” was emailed to more than 30 recipients including her office, nine minutes before the attack but it gave no location or specific details. She said her office sent it to parliamentary security two minutes after getting it.

In the manifesto, which was also posted online, Tarrant described himself as “Just a ordinary White man, 28 years old” who used profits from cryptocurrency trading to finance travels through Europe from 2016-2018.

The shootings have raised new questions about violence being disseminated online. Facebook said it had removed 1.5 million videos of the attack in the first 24 hours, and it was also removing all edited versions, even those without graphic content.

Ardern told the briefing that she had been contacted by Facebook operations chief Sheryl Sandberg who had acknowledged what had happened.

“This is an issue that I will look to be discussing directly with Facebook,” Ardern said.

The violence has also shone a new light on gun control.

Ardern said Tarrant was a licensed gun owner who allegedly used five weapons, including two semi-automatic weapons and two shotguns, which had been modified. She said a ban on semi-automatic weapons would be considered.

“We cannot be deterred from the work that we need to do on our gun laws,” Ardern said. “They will change.”

Media has reported a rush to buy guns before any ban is brought in.

New Zealand has tried to tighten laws before but a strong gun lobby and culture of hunting has stymied efforts.

There are an estimated 1.5 million firearms in New Zealand, which has a population of only 5 million, but it has had low levels of gun violence.

The post Accounts emerge of heroism in New Zealand mosques; bodies to be released appeared first on ARYNEWS.

https://ift.tt/2Y0aFOB

#World News